Ashes of the Singularity: Founders August Discussion

Greetings!

This is going to be a long one…and a bit rambling.

My screenshots are of our current build (0.50) which will be in your hands next week (tomorrow, you get 0.49).

clip_image002

Setting up

When setting up a match, the map determines the max number of players. For now, we limit it to 4. Our release goal is to allow up to 8 players on a map with 4 of them being human.

We want to support more humans but if we have the choice between having tens of thousands of units OR more than 4 players multiplayer we have to go with having more units.

clip_image004

Now, in this version of the setup screen, you can choose to have your extractors pre-built. When this is the case, you only have to capture the region to gain its resources. Otherwise, you need to capture the region and then build up its resources. It all depends on how you want to play the game.

Issue #1: Strategic View

clip_image006

The plan is to allow the player the option to view the map (either all or most of it) with a given player’s forces displayed as their color in a heat map.

What’s not in my crude mockup is that regions will have symbols on them showing who owns them and what is predominantly in that region (Turinium, Metal, Radioactives, Nobles).

Level of Control:

It’s impossible to control individual units in this manner because even the largest units would be no more than a pixel (and if we turned everything into icons it would become absurd). Instead, the plan is to have your Control Groups be displayed as a shield with some information around it on the map. You will be able to see your control group on the empire tree along with the meta units within it.

The Strategic View will go through a lot of iteration as we go forward.

Issue #2: User Interface

clip_image008

The mini map will soon display the generators (rather than focusing on region drawing). The owner of the region will determine what color the generator icon is. The symbol on the generator icon is based on whether the region is primarily metal, radioactives, turnium or noble gases). The player colors will be a heat map showing where known player units are.

clip_image010

The general UI intent is that ASDFG will let you hot key anything in the command console and QWERT will be the hotkey of whatever the active ability list (with TAB acting to tab between rows).

clip_image012

You, the player, are represented by the “seed” (which we hope goes the way of the Ewok – we never use that word in the game but you guys will know the code name for the player base).

By default, the produce mode is active which will display the Engineer at the start of the game as the active ability of the produce mode (Q).

Two other modes are available to you: Research and Abilities. Clicking on Research will display various techs you can research where the abilities are. Clicking on Abilities will show what global abilities you have available.

Displaying information

When in Produce view, the things that can be constructed are displayed the same as abilities. When you begin producing something, a number is displayed in the bottom right of the icon and the progress wheel will begin to spin on that icon to indicate how far along it is.

Similarly, if there are a series of techs you want, you can queue them up which will display the number in the bottom right (if a tech stacks, it’ll increase beyond 1) with the progress wheel on that tech.

And with abilities, the same thing. If a given ability costs more to use the more you use it, the number of times you’ve used it will be displayed to the bottom right of it. The progress wheel will indicate how long the effect has left (if applicable) as well as how long it has to cool down.

Issue #3: Global Abilities

So if you click on your base (or just on the map in general) you will be able to see what global abilities are available. We haven’t decided yet what ones you’ll start with. Below are the ones we’re fairly committed to for each race.

Ability

Description

Race

Cooldown

Cost

Sensor Sweep

Scan a section of the map to uncover the FOW for 30 seconds

PHC

   

Rush

Target building gets a 50% boost to its production time for 1 minute.

PHC

   

Protect

Units in target area receive a 50% boost for 30 seconds to their armor

PHC

   

Vampire

Absorbs enemy energy

PHC

   

Fortify

Drop a Turret onto the target location that lasts for 1 minute

PHC

   

Transport

All units in a target radius are transported to a target location that is visible to the player (i.e. uncovered by FOW)

PHC

   

Drone Storm

Place a swarm of drones in the target area (uncovered FOW)

Substrate

   

Spy

Create a fake enemy unit that appears to be a friendly unit (except it can't be commanded) that can drive through enemy lines and spy

Substrate

   

Sabotage

Target uncovered building is taken offline for 30 seconds

Substrate

   

Point Defense

Places a Point Defense Drone that blocks incoming shots within a radius for 30 seconds

Substrate

   

Gateway

Create a gateway at a target location that can call in reinforcements that teleport to target location rather than driving once built

Substrate

   

Obscure

Target units will not show up on radar for 90 seconds

Substrate

   

But there are others we are considering such as:

· Sprint. Target unit can move 2X speed for a limited time. A meta unit may contain 128 sub-units within it so keep that in mind. J

· Invigorate. Everything in the target region gets a 10% boost to whatever it’s doing (producing units, producing resources, etc.). Can be infinitely stacked (i.e. can cast it again and again) but costs more each time you use it.

We are interested in more abilities that stack (i.e. start out cheap but get more expensive the more times you use them).

Issue #4: The Tech Tree

I have redone the tech tree so much that Brian Wade and Brian Clair are going to murder me if I keep redoing this.

So two things if I disappear:

(1) They killed me.

(2) You will never find my body.

Now, with that out of the way, we’ve had months to play the game and we’ve learned a few things:

a. Building buildings that do stat increases (like logistics) is boring and not fun.

b. Researching techs to unlock units and buildings is not fun.

As a result, the UI for the tech tree will be an ability grid just like the way we display building units (and activating global abilities). You’ll click your seed building (or just the ground to select it) and click on the Research view to display the 4X3 research grid (QWER X 3).

The updated the Post-Human Tech “Tree”.

Metal Production

Metal Storage

Radioactive Production

Radioactive Storage

Unit Weapon Upgrades

Unit Armor Upgrades

Auto-Repair

Sensor Upgrades

Logistics

Manufacturing

Building Armor

TBD

Each of these techs are “unsexy” but have an important place in the game. Let’s walk through this.

Your Research Matrices will soon generate tech points per tic. You can spend those points on these techs. 1 Research matrix will generate 1 tech point per tic. The base cost of these techs will be 100. Each time you level up a given category the cost will increase by 25% (this number will get balanced endlessly in the future no doubt).

1. Metal Production. Each Level will increase the production by 10%.

2. Metal Storage. Each level will increase your total storage by 10%.

3. Radioactive Production. Each level will increase production by 10%.

4. Radioactive Storage. Each level will increase storage by 10%.

5. And so on with these exceptions…

6. Auto-Repair. Level 1 = 5 HP per tic. L2 10 HP. L3 15 HP. L4 20HP.

7. Logistics: Defaults now to 100 logistics. L1 = 200. L2=300. L3=400…

Issue #5: Buildings

If we eliminate the Logistics Array, Metal Storage, Radioactive Storage, Metal Refinery and Fusion Plant that gives us 5 other things that the player can do that are more interesting.

It is our view that generally, buildings are better for unlocking new player capabilities. Two reasons:

(1) You can scout their strategy based on seeing what buildings they have.

(2) It requires some strategic planning on the player’s part.

So let’s revisit some the global abilities we want players to have:

1. Sensor Sweep

2. Transport

3. Rush

4. Obscure

5. Gateway

Many of these abilities are very powerful. As a player, I want to know if my opponent is doing this. We could require that special buildings must be built in your home region so that scouting is possible.

We want to keep the number of buildings down in the base game (put too many and the game becomes overwhelming to your early audience). Since 5 buildings are about to get removed, we have 5 buildings we can add.

Ideas include:

1. A building that enables Sensor Sweep (must be built in the home region)

2. A building that jams sensor sweep in a target region (can be built anywhere)

3. A building that enables the Gateway ability (must be built in the home region).

4. A building that blocks all enemy ability actions (sabotage, teleport, gateway) into that region.

5. Something else (building that lets units gain XP and level up? A building that unlocks the heal ability, etc.)

6. A building that PRODUCES Noble Gases (rather than it being a resource on the map).

The point being, when you play on big maps, we still want a way to scout what your opponent’s strategy is. And we want something we can later expand on later.

Your comments are welcome.

59,623 views 46 replies
Reply #1 Top

frogboy..would it be possible to let the player decide like on sins of a solar empire..where you choose fleet size? and only available on certain maps? to accommodate 4vs4 human players that way if a players wants to play with tons of units with the current options they can..but then on a 4-4 humans some concessions will be made..or not possible at all?

+1 Loading…
Reply #2 Top

Frogboy,

 

I'm really happy with the amount of content and changes!  Seems you liked my heat map idea!  Though I'm sure you guys had already thought of that xD

 

As of right now I have to say that I will want to play around with all the changes before I say anything.  I can see some potential issues with some of the abilities but I will have to wait and see.

Few tidbits though..

1)  I don't think a building to produce noble gases would be a good idea.  To turtle friendly.  I think it would be better to have the major deposits of it situated in critical areas on the map to generate movement in-game.  You guys like Star Craft it seems, so maybe even think of treating them like gold bases.  This could be interesting as it could make a player choose between abilities and risk of losing the invested resources in that base (usually gold bases in SC2 are in risky and hard to defend areas, but taking them early can really spice up a game).

2)  As of right now I don't like many of the ability ideas.  Many of them are generic "buffs" that so many games add to units.  For example the sprint ability.  Why?  Why does my army get magical double speed?  Or why do my units get a 50% armor increase?  Why wasn't this armor put onto the unit when it was in the factory?

Do you understand what I mean by generic buffs?  Tanks in the real world can't suddenly move faster than they were made to or bolt on extra armor.  And if they moved faster, you'd probably get engine damage faster and increased maintenance?  And if you add armor post factory, you move slower as a consequence to be better armored.

If we have abilities like this, I want to see the player penalized somehow in some way.  If you use sprint, maybe all the units using it take a small DPS damage per second to simulate engine damage (Guns of Icarus did this).  This way you can't use it willy nilly, and adds strategy because if you want to blitz offensively with sprint, you have to be mindful to bring enough repair units.

One of the reasons I enjoyed supreme commander was that you had tanks and buildings and that was it.  Your tanks had roles and that was it.  No fancy gizmos, or activated abilities, nothing.  Just tanks and units that fill a roll in the battlefield, and that's what you had to use!

Cheers!  Eagerly waiting for the release!  Looks like it will come out on my day off :D:D!!!!

Reply #3 Top

i can see why they want to max unit count  specially for those future compstompers and knowing the engine will handle it..but skilled 4v4 omg "drools" this i wouldnt mind if it was like a limit of 5k units out of 10k per player lol ..but off course game mechanics and all specially with such large fleets is a given.. maybe 5k might not be good(just random number i threw in)...but hey we are just tinkering here lol..cant wait to play the new builds "drool" 

Reply #4 Top

On an iPad so I will have to follow up with a lengthier response later.

 

re units: TA topped at 250 units.myoumcould mod it to 500.  SupCom:fa would slow to a crawl with their instances units if there were more than a few hundred.  i have no doubt if the dev teams could make an engine for today's hardware they'd easily push thousands of units. Mods of 20 year old games don't count as those visuals wouldn't be commercially viable today (I.e. a modern laptop could display thousands of low polygon, plain dds texture units, that's not relevant to our discussion).

as fr what people prefer, I remember talking about gpgnet with Chris and e SupCom team. The % of people who played >2 players online was tiny. As in, less than 1% of the installed base. If we can do 8 human players (or 10 or 16 or what have you) we absolutely will. But we won't sacrifice the game we want to make to do it. This is doubly true when the demand we know it wouldn't be used.

as a player, I want huge maps with thousands of units fighting across multiple fronts. I want to eventually have games that could be played over a period of weeks. That's a niche desire too but I suspect there are more people who want to do that with 5 of their friends than people who would prefer gimping the design.  

bottom line: we want t maximize the number of humans who can play mp. But we won't sacrifice the gameplay to do it.

+1 Loading…
Reply #5 Top

Really nice stuff Frogboy there is a few things i want to say but I will wait to play the build (0.49) for a few hours before I comment on all those great thing your adding to the game so far.

Reply #7 Top

Everything in your original post is awesome, no complaints. I'm very excited about the variety of global abilities. That's an area that you could be very creative with, perhaps we'll see even more of that in DLC and expansions. Most of the rest of my post is about global abilities, though I dabble into research too.

Getting rid of the various resource buildings, relegating that to research, seems like a neat idea. On the downside, this tech tree does seem a little boring. You don't want to build buildings to do stat increases, but instead you are doing research to do stat increases. It's pretty much the same thing except you don't need an engineer and the stat increases can't be destroyed. As others have said, when both players research the weapon and armor upgrades, effectively not much will change. In my opinion you want to make research tech things that will alter gameplay, tactics, and strategy. In a way that's what researching units brings to the table, though to be clear I'm not advocating that that is better.

It makes sense to me that, while you do keep research to improve building and units, you also have to unlock some or all global abilities via research. And you can level each global ability research to make them better.

Since you want some visual indication of what a player is capable of for global abilities, and I agree with this, what about a "special projects" building that gets different visible modules for each different global ability, and the enemy is able to easily determine the research level for that ability? Maybe that special projects building can only support 2 to 4 global abilities, then the player has to build another one to make use of another 2 to 4 global abilities. Destroying a "special projects" building makes the associated global abilities unusable until a new building with the necessary module is rebuilt. I realize this means you are using up only 1 of the 5 newly opened building slots you wanted to fill. So I have some other building ideas at the end.

As for global ability resource use cost scaling, what about scaling the cost with the level of the ability, not the number of uses? For example, if an ability is twice as powerful as the base level, it costs 4 times as much. If the player has upgraded an ability to level 3, they can choose to use the ability at level 1, 2, or 3 so they aren't forced to use sensor sweep level 3 at a high cost when level 1 will do for their present need.

Other global ability ideas:

Bravado - Units in the target area have an effective veterancy level increase for a duration, and earn experience faster.

Nanovirus - Enemy units shoot at each other instead of your units/buildings.

Hacked - Steal Turinium from an enemy turinium refinery for a duration.

 

Other building ideas:

Drone factory - builds drones that improve the output/efficiency of all buildings in the area of effect (factories, resource buildings, research buildings, turrets, etc.). This is similar to Invigorate, but more permanent, therefore it should be weaker than invigorate. You should make invigorate also make turrets better, not just production buildings.

Sentry Tower - A building with high vision range that has no offensive capability. Enemies within its ability range have some kind of penalty, perhaps speed, fire rate, accuracy, lower effective veterancy level, something that makes penetrating that zone more difficult. This helps address the "battle groups passing through each other" situation.

 

I'll keep thinking of more.

 

+1 Loading…
Reply #8 Top

Something i dont like its the too close zoom i cant view all the field has i want ,that will be a problem to enjoy the game and make fast decisions.

And i dont like the left click mouse to pan view ,dont let micro and too many mistakes , do we have a option to swap that configuration?

The rest bether then i was expect at this point.

The music its really awsome where you guys grab the sound ideas, just feel good play with it.

 

And dx 12 its really faster then dx 11, wy i dont now but almost +/-  40% faster for now .

Reply #9 Top

So, i have been playing a few games vs AI (since i cant find any multiplayer games, not sure if its broken, a placeholder, or that there is just nobody online right now), and all i can say is that this game feels so incredibly slow. This game plays far, far slower than supcom and sc2. Its not that the maps are too large (more on this in a moment), but that the units are themselves are just too slow with moving around the map. The only units capable of getting anywhere in any timely fashion are the air units (expected), which really destroys the game imo.

I have only just started playing it, and only just arrived on these forums, but i have looked about before posting, and one of the things that stood out was that there is an advocasy of the developers being against turtling. Whilst i have no issue on this stance, the problem is that because the units move so slowly, the armies can very easily revolve into a stalemate position. I was even attempting to build factories two regions away from the AI just so i could get an army to the opponent in a reasonable amount of time.

 

So i guess the first thing i want to ask is:

Will we be getting an expanded air set? Such as air transports, gunships and potentially more fixed wing aircraft?

The current bomber that is in requires tech 2, which although it doesnt take long to get, really prevents the ability to do anything towards quick pushing and harrassment. I know a lot of people are against sc2 esque rushing, which i dont really mind, but rushing in general is more about quick harrassment to put yourself ahead, rather than some all or nothing attack.

 

Secondly:

Is there any thoughts on increasing the speed of units?

As mentioned above, there is currently no way to attack the opponent during the early game.

 

The problem i have with the maps is that they seem to be large enough to accomodate MAYBE up to 1k units per player, even though i felt it was getting pretty cluttered at around 500 units, but the biggest point is that no 1v1 game will be getting up to the multiple 1000 unit counts in a competetive match. Designing the game around multiple 1000 units per player seems a little naive in light of things such as this, and whilst i dont believe it will break, or even make the game bad, it can still hurt the competetive community if it is foccused on too much.

I guess to add on to this, the idea of focussing more on more units than the possibility of more than 4 players per game, will seem to hurt as well. One of the main things about supcom today is setons, which almost everyone plays. While i think it might be silly to go over 4v4, such as how Planetary Annihilation has, i believe 4v4 is a pretty crucial upper limit.

I played Planetary Annihilation a lot during its alpha, and advocated for quite a lot of changes in that game at various points in development (one of the main ones was the debris change that they only just implemented), and similarly, during alpha, that game was pretty damn slow because of the large maps, however, we had some very speedy units that allowed harrassment during the first 5 minutes, whilst the game preserved the core concept of MASS units similar to this game.

As an after thought, one other thing i remember is that there seems to be an idea of minimizing the impact of apm as much as possible. Whilst again, im not particularly against this, as most APM is needless clicking, there needs to be care taken in which ways you attempt to remove it. If the slowness of the units is one attempt of slowing the game down so much that APM has a lesser impact, i believe that is a wrong choice. I keep mentioning Planetary Annihilation, but they did do some very nice things in regards to specific places, and area controls were truly a great addition to the game, both for eliminating needless APM, and speeding up the game in general. APM can never be eliminated from having an impact on the game, as players will always find ways to use it, but dont try too hard to get rid of it as it will likely hurt the game more than it helps.

 

It would be great if someone from the dev team were to reply with their own thoughts, as i really do not wish that this game releases in the same state that Planetary Annihilation did.

Reply #10 Top

Re speed:

What will likely happen is that there will be a Speed setting ala Starcraft/Sins/TA/etc.

In Starcraft, "Faster" is now the default for instance.  In Sins, our default speed is now +2 beyond the designed normal.  It seems to be a recurring thing.

We're not likely to make the units "faster" per se, but we are likely to provide the player the ability to control the simulation speed.

Reply #11 Top

In my humble opinion, unit speed is probably fine. At the rate that units die, if you make them much faster they'll be able to go right through tons of defenses barely scathed. It is true on Deneb the first battle wasn't until 10 minutes in, but that's because there are two opponents on what I consider a fairly sizeable map.

Reply #12 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 11

Re speed:

What will likely happen is that there will be a Speed setting ala Starcraft/Sins/TA/etc.

In Starcraft, "Faster" is now the default for instance.  In Sins, our default speed is now +2 beyond the designed normal.  It seems to be a recurring thing.

We're not likely to make the units "faster" per se, but we are likely to provide the player the ability to control the simulation speed.

 

To me, a speed setting is completely irrelevant as most of my time playing these games are spent in the ladder, and having a speed option for the ladder, is well, kinda stupid and pointless for many different reasons. My gripe is just the speed that units move, not how long battles take, or how long said units take to build either, so the simulation speed controls also dont really do much. I guess we will see whether what i am saying is truly an issue or not when the 'NDA' is lifted, and people start doing streams/videos, and tournaments happen. So far, i struggle to end 1v1 games in under 25minutes, which is too slow for me if those are supposed to be early game esque endings.

A bit of an after thought: Have you guys tried upping the units speed rather than just the simulation speed in your internal play sessions? If you are upping the simulation speed, whats the main issue with the game? What aspect of it is too slow for you guys?

Reply #13 Top


Issue #3: Global Abilities

you have some good Global Abilities in there, but i want to add some cons on some of those Global Abilities

  • Transport -->> its a great idea but how are you going to defend against a Rush to your seed Structure? need to be really careful on this one.
  • Gateway -->> same as transport but worth, teleporting directly to the seed is a GG.

I will love to see more Destruction and less buffs, like Bombardment, Orbital Strike, etc.


Issue #4: The Tech Tree

A while back Frogboy you said The Artemis at the start of the game so its secondary weapon, a long-range missile, isn't enabled (the black disabled piece in the middle). Players can upgrade their units via the tech tree (all this is subject to change based on play testing for fun and pacing).

Will we see Unit upgrades still or not anymore? i do love to see that happening.

Reply #14 Top

Quoting Gunshinn, reply 13


To me, a speed setting is completely irrelevant as most of my time playing these games are spent in the ladder, and having a speed option for the ladder, is well, kinda stupid and pointless for many different reasons. My gripe is just the speed that units move, not how long battles take, or how long said units take to build either, so the simulation speed controls also dont really do much. I guess we will see whether what i am saying is truly an issue or not when the 'NDA' is lifted, and people start doing streams/videos, and tournaments happen. So far, i struggle to end 1v1 games in under 25minutes, which is too slow for me if those are supposed to be early game esque endings.


A bit of an after thought: Have you guys tried upping the units speed rather than just the simulation speed in your internal play sessions? If you are upping the simulation speed, whats the main issue with the game? What aspect of it is too slow for you guys?

 

Re speed.  I suspect we'll end up doing a lot of stuff on this end.  During the Sins of a Solar Empire betas, this was possibly the hottest topic because originally, that game's play speed was much much slower than it eventually became. We were very concerned with how the speed would affect the simulation calculations and mutliplayer but eventually we were able to optimize it to higher speeds.

Reply #15 Top

Quoting tatsujb, reply 15


Quoting Frogboy,

SupCom:fa would slow to a crawl with their instances units if there were more than a few hundred.  

thousands, yes, I'll hand you that. then again if you didn't have a pentium D or a core two duo, you were a lost soul. A really really lost soul who had no idea how he came to be in front of this game.


Quoting Frogboy,
Mods of 20 year old games don't count as those visuals wouldn't be commercially viable today (I.e. a modern laptop could display thousands of low polygon, plain dds texture units, that's not relevant to our discussion).



I'm sorry but I can show side by side comparisons of FA and AOTS (yes the graphics aren't finished but you guys did claim it was a 7/10 out of what you were aiming for)

and you'll witness that the graphics of FA are by no measure of the term "outdated" ... they even far outclass AOTS!

I understand that pushing those graphics creates a load on the GPU where before in games like FA or TA, these where games where you only ever needed to worry about having a good cpu.

The reason these games are CPU-heavy is because of the projectile simulations. as long as these games have this feature plus a lot of units, they will always be exercising the same kind of load on the cpu.

one of the features you added in this game : flowfield pathfinding removes an incredible amount of CPU load compared to the pathfinding in FA, am I correct?

I mentioned other advances you yourself are employing which help all this simulation code execute faster, plus you saw the hardware thread : a crazy number of people here are equipped with 4th to 5th gen intel CPUs (some may even have the flagship of the 6th).

how is it that these circumstances do not make for a higher unit count? I just am puzzeled, an explanation would go a long ways.

BTW i can actually run a 18 000 unit count FA game on my PC without going under +1 gamespeed. (I may hit -1 a couple times but nothing noticeable)


Quoting Frogboy,
as fr what people prefer, I remember talking about gpgnet with Chris and e SupCom team. The % of people who played >2 players online was tiny. As in, less than 1% of the installed base. If we can do 8 human players (or 10 or 16 or what have you) we absolutely will. But we won't sacrifice the game we want to make to do it. This is doubly true when the demand we know it wouldn't be used.

I think you're familiar with the fact things in the informatic world move very very fast. Something a year ago is already old news.

back when games like supcom and TA were made, online gaming was in no way big, save for south korea, and still then... nothing to do with what it is today, and the infatuation with multiplayer gaming going on these days.

you can't pretend you don't see it.

I'm sure you'll come to reason on this point. At least poll this.

People aren't looking for the same flavor of thrills today as they where 10 years ago.

 

Broadly speaking regarding this:

1. We live in a world where people can, right now, go onto YouTube and watch let's plays.  So we don't really need to speculate on what Supreme Commander can and can't do when there are lots of units on the screen.  There's only so much you can do with a single threaded, DirectX 9 engine.  We've struggled with the same issue with Sins of a Solar Empire.

2. Re graphics. You are high. ;) https://youtu.be/OuUcIfcMDtc people can judge for themselves.    Now, if you want to see a game with amazing visuals using the SupCom engine I invite you to: http://www.demigodthegame.com. That game has amazing visuals.  Demigod used the Forge engine (Forged Alliance).  The point being, GPG's engineers made an amazing engine.  But at the end of the day, it had to be made with the hardware and platform available at the time: DirectX 9 and single core CPUs.  

3. You also have a misunderstanding of what eats up CPU power.  Pathfinding, projectiles, are nothing on a multi-core CPU.  The problem is doing all these things at once on a single core.  Ashes doesn't have this problem because it is core-neutral. The more cores, the better. That's why Ashes can handle thousands of units without a slow down. It's not magic. It's just the difference between being able to split the work between multiple cores and not.

4. Gamespeed of SupCom.  I have a Core I7-5960x. It disagrees. But it's not like there are plenty of YouTube Let's play videos.  Feel free to post a video on YouTube of your 18,000 SupCom game running at 30fps with fluid unit movement.

I don't like being put in the position of appearing to be critical of the Forge engine.  I spent some years of my life working with it. It's a great engine for its time.  

But talks like this remind me too much of the people (ahem, admittedly me included) who used to argue that you could do X on an Amiga with 512K memory.  The answer is, no you can't you just remember it differently.

Personally, I think Total Annihilation is the greatest PC game of all time.

As I have said:

"I'm something of a Chris Taylor groupie after Total Annihilation. The bronze statue of him in Stardock's offices of him is a great conversatoin starter. There he is, Taylor with his head looking towards the heavens with an out-streteched hand." -me 14 years ago.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Chris$20taylor$20bronze$20statue/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic/LJeXiUj_U00/icnT8nV_MJoJ 

 

Reply #16 Top

tatsujb, are you familiar with the phrase "you can catch more flies with honey"? While I'm sure feedback on any relevant topic is appreciated, your confrontational tone in pretty much every post you make might be more counterproductive instead of constructive. Food for thought. Now on to my main topic.

Frogboy et al., I have encountered several interface and unit behavior bugs that are pretty much impossible to explain without a video. How do you recommend I report such bugs in a way that doesn't violate the NDA?

Reply #17 Top

@tat The basic issue I'm having with yours claims is that you seem to have rose colored glasses. 

For instance, the Ashes video I posted wasn't some polished, carefully crafted view of the game.  It was someone streaming, live, the benchmark.

Again: Show me a YouTube video with 18,000 units in Supcom. 

This is a recent video of Supreme Commander: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKckc5sjA84. Recent. Current hardware.

When you make claims like you make, you're not persuasive. It just means people will take your future arguments with a grain of salt.  Do you want people to listen to your feedback?

Pretty much all of us here love Supreme Commander. Many of us have FAF on our machines. 

In an 8 player SupCom game you might have 4,000 units right?  In an 8 player Ashes game, you might have 60,000 units.  Unfortunately, internet speeds have not increased a factor of 15 since 2007 for most people.  

That doesn't mean Ashes won't ever support 8, 10, 30 players online at once.  But it's not likely it'll do it at 1.0.  And, BTW, neither did SupCom at launch in any practical way.  It took years for GPGNet to reach the point where it was reliable for more than 2 players.  And even today, people have trouble with it regularly.  That's one reason people use FAF.  

 

+1 Loading…
Reply #18 Top

Quoting tatsujb, reply 20


Quoting eviator,

tatsujb, are you familiar with the phrase "you can catch more flies with honey"? While I'm sure feedback on any relevant topic is appreciated, your confrontational tone in pretty much every post you make might be more counterproductive instead of constructive. Food for thought. Now on to my main topic.

I dunno what you mean. 

it's a shame you get this impression. That's not what I'm trying to do. maybe you haven't sen this post I made : https://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/462600/get;3558295

and by the way, I'll be gentlemanly and answer your question, I asked the same one awhile ago and they said the founder's forum was the right place since it was not visible to anyone on the outside.

+1 tatsujb

plus, having just applied for the founder edition (+all DLCs) a few days ago, it sounds like to me that we can discuss but we should better agree with frogboy ....

I read very valid statements by tatsujb, but frogboy sounds like systematically in a position where he disagrees, whatever the arguments are.

So if this is the way a discussion must be, then it's very disapointing.

 

Reply #19 Top

Quoting tatsujb, reply 20

I dunno what you mean. 
 
 
Interesting, I don't know how that is possible as civil communication is a basic social skill. Nearly every phrase in post #18, if uttered face to face to an angry person who is bigger than me, could result in a punch to the gut on the grounds of snarkiness. On the Internet, a more likely result is that the other person will just start to ignore you, something I suspect you do not want. Again food for thought.

your question, I asked the same one awhile ago and they said the founder's forum was the right place since it was not visible to anyone on the outside.

My question seems different. How do I share videos of the bugs I'm encountering? I can't very well put them on YouTube and post the link in the founders' forum.

 

 

Reply #20 Top

@jet.  The argument at hand, as far as I can tell, is that tat thinks that we are better off sacrificing unit count to have 8 players.  I disagree.  

Am I misunderstanding something?

Reply #21 Top

I honestly prefer a good complex gameplay then a lot units just fighting.

Dont get me rong but have  + 5k units dont mean a game can be good.

 

We (they) only keep talk about FAF because its a game that keep grow after so many years ,and become  a professional service like no other with normal players that are work on it without get any kind money ,so we have to respect what they have done.

when GPG die , faf has boarn when no one belive could be possible by Zep hands its bether then GPG by far milles.

The game got almost all a RTS player wants nothing miss there.

 

But here for me i true belive AOTS got more power and presence then the now FAF and any other rts after i try the pre beta.

 

Still miss lot options on this game yes true ,we all now its the basic steps on a beta game nothing new.

Still miss lot units, and its a style that have to be work so we all have again that RTS we so long are wait.

All the options you find in FAF or Starcraft or planetary anhilation ,AOTS can make it bether, i belive that ,and i now by the talk with lot players here that you also belive.

 

 After i try the new Build i understand since its the 1 time i buy a game from them, that  the quality here its hight ,i mean really hight.

 So they want make this game bether they now how ,but ower feedback its really important ,thats wy all we showld talk its how to improve.

 Like  me i want the FA total zoom ,no icons,more defence options ,game anders, the ui i see its very good but needs fixs thats normal etc etc...

 

Remenber that this guys now FAF so that means they now wy players go there every day without get tired since 2007 we are in 2015 ,like they now starcraft or grey goo or other rts games.

 

We dont need a copy of the best RTS ever made but we need feel that we have a new game  with same options but bether ,AOTS its here to show that.

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #22 Top

I agree with that.

Reply #23 Top

Quoting jetsnguns, reply 22


+1 tatsujb

plus, having just applied for the founder edition (+all DLCs) a few days ago, it sounds like to me that we can discuss but we should better agree with frogboy ....

I read very valid statements by tatsujb, but frogboy sounds like systematically in a position where he disagrees, whatever the arguments are.

So if this is the way a discussion must be, then it's very disapointing.

 

FrogBoy has been pretty clear about the fact that at the end of the day the game is theirs and they will make the game they set out to make. If you've read enough posts you'll know that there are many changes that have been, or will be, implemented because of the feedback that has been given. The devs ARE listening, just not to every idea that has been thrown out there. I've mentioned plenty of ideas and as long as I know that they've been reviewed that's enough for me. It's the devs' responsibility to figure out what should be implemented in the game to meet their expectations. After all, they have to sell it.

 

And however "valid" tatsujb's arguments have been they have almost always included some phrasing that makes the other person feel that their ideas are either idiotic or inferior. They also all seem to point to SupCom being the "best game ever" which is a valid opinion, but not a fact. I watched the video he posted and in my opinion I think that the units in Sins: Rebellion looked much better. I will admit that the only time that I've played SupCom was on a Pentium 4 where my PC crawled once I had 80 units on the map and so it left a bad taste in my mouth, but AotS is supposed to be different to some extent from other games. I personally signed up for the founders' program because I fell in love with the Sins series and was hoping that this would be my next favorite RTS, but I in nowise expect the developers to just port everything from my favorite RTS just because I ask.

 

I am not a competitive gamer, but that is most of the reason that I was interested in this game. I expect these games to take several hours to get through, even in multiplayer. I prefer to play online with one or two other friends at most and then it's more of a weekly get together (take an hour here, another hour next week, and so on until you've beaten the enemy). I don't mind having only 4 players online and I thought that the focus of this game was to stray away from the quick less-than-20-minute games of Starcraft and the like.

 

And to answer tatsujb's question (what is the bottleneck preventing the massive amounts of units in multiplayer if the engine is so unbelievably good?) with FrogBoy's answer (if I'm interpreting this correctly) it seems that internet speeds would be the bottleneck for having that many units with that many players involved.

 

To talk about the original post I'm really happy with the developments. I couldn't be more excited to see the storage and logistics buildings disappear. I do think that the easy transport or teleport options are problematic for rushing the base too early. You could have some limitation on the way that things transport around (the seed generates some magnetic field that affects that wormhole for so many miles around or the seed would destroy the transport if it got too close).

I think shurtugalll has a point, we should have a reason behind these global abilities. If we're getting better armor it should have some reason for doing so (the material is some special composite that hardens when current applies and only gives extra strength when the seed provides that power or something). I enjoyed the sprint ability in Sins, but it only worked for one unit and the extra speed needed to be recharged (space mass converted to fuel?).

As far as speed is concerned I think that the speed of the game is way more important later on in the game. In Sins I usually sped up the beginning so that I could get my economy rolling and then slowed down once I had several fleets around the galaxy that needed attention. The APM is much higher at high speeds several hours in for a big map with 60,000 units to manage and I think we need to take that into account. Maybe to test that the devs could offer a save game of a match that is essentially stalemated with a lot of units for us to just focus on late-game speed dynamics.

 

I'm excited to play the new version! Keep up the updates!

Reply #24 Top

Frogboy or Dev's a quick few questions about this 0.49 version and upcoming 0.50 build, how much time it will take to build 5k units?

hmm Lets say each Meta units has 1-T3/5-T2/75-T1 Units Total: 81 Units per Meta Unit we will need more than 60 Meta Units to get the 5000 units.

if we have 5 unit structures and 2 advanced unit structure,

  • How much time it will take to have 5000 units? on the map?

I think a few hours, and that's only 5k units,

  • What about 10k units per side?
  • Are we gonna have an option to build faster units? i know by adding engineers to Structures but still it will take a lot of time
  • Are we going to be able to add more than 1-T3 unit inside a Meta Unit?
  • Are the Meta Units going to be Bigger?
  • Can Air Units be inside or part of a Meta Unit?

 Did You guys think about it and on how to do it? i mean i will love to have 10k units in a game but.. in max 1 hour of playing to make it faster and slower. maybe even take it to 20k units per side in the near future.

Reply #25 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 24

those graphics creates a load on the GPU where before in games like FA or TA, these where games where you only ever needed to worry about having a good cpu.

The reason these games are CPU-heavy is because of the projectile simulations. as long as these games have this feature plus a lot of units, they will always be exercising the same kind of load on the cpu.

one of the features you added in this game : flowfield pathfinding removes an incredible amount of CPU load compared to the pathfinding in FA, am I correct?

I mentioned other advances you yourself are employing which help all this simulation code execute faster, plus you saw the hardware thread : a crazy number of people he

 

@Frog

from a technical perspective and from a gameplay perspective what would be the problem of capping the maximum number of units according to the number of players ?

 

If the number of units per player is critical from a gameplay perspective then i can understand you prefer to go for max 4 online players. But if not, why not give the choice between max 4 players and max 8 players with a unit cap ?

From a technical perspective are you going for server based simulation ? p2p ? "battle.net" like solution ?

I'm just concerned about why you would not allow players to chose between more player or more units.

 

Thanks.